Even though a new Illustrated report casts Kobe Bryant in an unsavory light, the collapse of the Bryant prosecution is likely to be the first step toward redemption of the star’s reputation. To many, he is guilty of nothing worse than adultery. His wife has forgiven him. Expect Bryant Nike commercial before the end of the year.

But regardless of whether the sex was consensual or not, Bryant did something dangerous in that hotel room. He had unprotected sex with someone less than 2 hours after they met. Magic Johnson’s earlier example teaches us that reckless sex can endanger the lives of literally dozens of others. Reckless sex deserves separate censure.

This kind of behavior is not the norm. Most people use condoms for one-night stands. According to two different national studies, the majority of adults report using condoms in casual, or non-ongoing, relationships. Some of these people use condoms to prevent disease, some to prevent pregnancy.

But Bryant was not concerned enough about these risks to use a condom. At a minimum, he was reckless in ways that can cause serious harms.

The lion’s share of sexually transmitted infections are caused by first-time sexual encounters. Almost all of these diseases could be prevented with condom use.

Unprotected first-encounters are also correlated with coercion. Few men careful enough to use a condom are reckless enough to rape. The same recklessness that causes men to overlook the risk of disease and pregnancy can also lead them to overlook whether the woman has truly consented.

When rape happens early in a relationship, male misperception is a major cause. Indeed, in a statement yesterday, Bryant has explicitly conceded just this kind of misperception. After unconditionally apologizing “for [his] behavior that night,” Bryant admitted: “Although I truly believe [sic] this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.”

The dismissal of Kobe Bryant’s case highlights the need for a new kind of criminal law that would both promote public health and help reduce the tragedy of sexual coercion.

A new crime of “reckless sexual conduct” should target unprotected first encounters. To convict, prosecutors would need to show beyond a reasonable doubt (i) a first-time sexual encounter between the defendant and the victim; and (ii) no use of a condom. The defendant would then have the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the victim consented to the unprotected sex.

Giving men a new incentive to wear a condom in first-time sexual encounters should significantly reduce both the risk of sexually transmitted infections and the tragic lack of communication that often gives rise to the illusion of consent. The very act of stopping to put on a condom should increase deliberation and communication. The more deliberation and communication, the lesser the likelihood of acquaintance rape. If Bryant had paused to use a condom, the tragedy of this event might never have occurred.

The crime of reckless sexual assault would also be a powerful prosecutorial tool for the thousands of acquaintance rape cases that are simply not winnable under current law. It represents a way to partially overcome the “he said/she said” dilemma. For some, reasonable doubts remain whether William Kennedy Smith or Mike Tyson raped, but there is no doubt that they engaged in unprotected, first-encounter sex.

Proof of this type of reckless conduct should be sufficient to shift the burden to men to prove consent. The message to men is not necessarily to forego one-night stands, but rather to use a condom or communicate enough so that you can trust your partner.

The new crime of reckless sex would not replace current rape laws and it would not immunize men who rape with condoms from prosecution under existing law. This supplementary crime need not be punished that severely. But, like DUI laws, its very existence would send a clear message that society can punish reckless behavior because it is physically and emotionally damaging, even if it is not motivated by animus..

We are all hurt by a world in which sex is reduced to a base, non-communicative physical act. People on the right and the left side of the political spectrum can agree that extremely casual, unprotected sex does little good for anyone and has the potential to do much harm.

A crime of reckless sex, by encouraging men to protect their sexual partners from disease and pregnancy, can simultaneously encourage men to deliberate and communicate in a way that promotes public health and greatly reduces unnecessary and damaging sexual violence.

We have drafted a model statute (just 200 words) expressly codifying this new crime. In a forthcoming law review article in The University of Chicago Law Review, we provide a more in depth defense of the statute. You can download a prepublication copy here.

We are all hurt by a world in which sex is reduced to a base, non-communicative physical act...

And what does sex become when the government starts issuing mandatory instruction manuals?

I sincerely hope, also, that U.Chicago asks for some support on ideas like "Unprotected first-encounters are also correlated with coercion. Few men careful enough to use a condom are reckless enough to rape."

I'd have to say, all in all, though, that the most offensive concept included here is the concept that women are to be presumed nonconsenting victims barring a showing great enough to burst the bubble on the behalf of the presumed agressor male. Why are women incapable of responsibility? Should we begin acting paternalistically towards this class again, as if they had no capacity to think for themselves?

As long as you continue to suggest that only men bear the responsibility for safe sexual contact, and call any woman involved in unsafe sex a "victim," you deny your own premise that "People on the right and the left side of the political spectrum can agree that extremely casual, unprotected sex does little good for anyone and has the potential to do much harm." If its an evil to both sexes, then why only punish one of them?

Or maybe its just that, on top of ignoring every possible sexual role of the female that involves any sort of choice or empowerment, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. "If Bryant had paused to use a condom, the tragedy of this event might never have occurred." Are you joking? The suggestion here is for what, a rape "cooling off" period? Or shall we go back to the point where the victim who asks her agressor to use a condom is accused of consent as a result?

The simple fact of the matter is, certainly anyone will agree that rape without a condom is more of a crime than rape with a condom. Certainly the penalty for a nonconsentual sexual attack of the nature suggested should be aggravated as a result. But to suggest that the proof of rape can be contained within a contraceptive is simply ridiculous. The proof of rape is in consent. Not the accessories involved. And if you feel reckless sex deserves separate public censure, good for you. Perhaps your local health department should be involved. But before you get it involved, have the faith in your gender to understand that both people in that hotel room committed a dangerous act, in the eyes of the Court. Men are not, by virtue of their gender, more or less capable of responsiblity, nor are women less capable. By litigating to place all responsibility for safety in the hands of the men, I highly doubt the result is a greater degree of safety in any regard.

Keep in mind, under your proposed statute, that a woman infected with an STD, who is aware of that fact, can have unprotected sex knowingly and consentingly with a healthy male, who is then himself prosecutable for the risk another intentionally subjected him to by virtue only of his gender. You've come a long way, baby. And you're headed right back in the opposite direction...

I have to agree with the first commenter. My gut reaction to this proposal is that it's a terrible idea. I could echo CC's concerns, but I will just add something new to the conversation. You state that one benefit of this new crime would be partially overcoming the he said/she said dilemma. But doesn't it just replace the old dilemma with a new one? Wouldn't there be a new he said/she said dispute about whether or not they agreed not to use a condom? I don't see that this is any easier to resolve than whether or not they consented to have sex. In fact, it would probably be harder. There is extrinsic evidence that can support a claim of consensual or non-consensual sex, but I can't think of any evidence that would support a claim of consensual unprotected sex or non-consensual unprotected sex, other than the testimony of the two individuals.

Of course unprotected sex is a huge public health problem, but I do not think criminalizing that conduct gets us anywhere closer to a solution. And not insignificantly, I think it also violates people's fundamental rights.

Sorry, I also wanted to add that I have not read the full article. (I plan to, as soon as I find time to read all 84 pages of it!) My comments are just in response to your post here. Perhaps you address some of my and CC's concerns in the article.

Can't we just hold that reckless endangerment through sex is, uh, reckless endangerment, and prosecute accordingly? I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of the law, but I'm not certain I want it on the books, all the same.

I disagree, and I am reminded of a common argument advanced in favor of sodomy laws -- that people should be protected against their own bad judgment.

While reckless sex is obviously a bad idea, such conduct between two consenting adults is NOT assault -- and it should not be the business of the state to invade citizens' privacy, especially with criminal sanctions.

Furthermore, making the accused defendant prove there was consent flies in the face of a long constitutional tradition.

Why allow the condom loophole at all? Taken to its logical conclusion, sex with a condom is wreckless as well (condoms break) and does nothing to address the rape issue (and let us not forget that the vast majority of such encounters are consensual, feminist fearmongering notwithstanding). Stand up for your convictions, outlaw sex out of wedlock entirely.You can pry wreckless sex out of my cold, dead hands.

The defendant would then have the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the victim consented to the unprotected sex.Ahem: defendants don't need to PROVE anything. The case must be proved against them. You are innocent until proven guilty. This kind of law is preposterous on the face, ridiculous in its nature, and the kind of micro-regulation safety nuts favor to further Balkinize the legal system and make additional criminals out of normal people.

I'm guessing this is just a "joke" post, not a serious intellectual argument. What's next, the exact nature of consenting? What do you propose, official contracts signed by two individuals and witnessed by a third party?

1.) Not constitutional. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

2.) Again - not constitutional. Assuming women are the victim and men are the perp - violates equal protection.

3.) Condescending. Why not start putting people in prison for reckless eating (e.g. the cops visit your house because you have been spotted feeding McDonalds to your kids more than 3 times this week). Same principle.

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people disgusted with the legal profession. It ranks up there with the top 10 stupidest ideas of all time.

Not to interject a note of mere reality into this lovely academic exercise, but have you people lost your minds?

Let's ignore the ethical issues -- should the law interpose so completely into the most private of acts? -- and the clearly implied infantilazation of women -- in the presumption that women need additional legal protections against sexual contact the authors deem undesirable.

Let's also ignore the rather explicit double libel against Bryant -- first, by continuing to effectively accuse Bryant of a crime after charges were dropped, and second by asserting that Bryant endangered the girl by having sex with her without a condom, when their own article says that Bryant in fact desisted from what he believed to be consensual sex because he had no condom.

Let's further ignore the fact that their theory of the crime of rape makes it possible for a man to have what he believes, in good faith, to be consensual sex, but in law be committing a crime because the woman is considered capable of appearing to consent while not actually consenting.

Ignoring all of these issues, have the authors considered the consequences this law would have?

If a man can believe that he has the woman's consent, even active co-operation, in having sex, and still be raping her, how much more difficult would it be for a man to be certain of her consent to have unprotected sex? Increasingly, the law regarding rape already requires a man to have telepathic powers so as to divine what the woman really means when she appears to consent, and powers of clairvoyance in order to be certain that the woman not only consents at the time, but will continue to avow consent in the future. And while their proposed law makes consent to unprotected sex an affirmative defense, how do they propose to determine that consent at trial? Will they require a signed affidavit?

As descibed, it appears that the authors propose to make it possible, under the law, to have consensual sex without a condom, while a crime is being committed in the fact that this consensual sex act is taking place without the condom. But how can a woman consent to a sex act that takes place without a condom, without necessarily consenting to sex without a condom?

On the other hand, if the sex act is not consensual, but takes place with a condom -- the authors cite case law to show this is possible under the law -- it is already the crime of rape. Is it the author's intent to make rape without a condom a more heinous crime than rape with a condom? If so, why not simply amend the existing criminal rape statutes?

It would appear either that the law is inherently vacuous, describing as a crime an event that cannot occur, or it is an attempt to invent a new crime which can only occur during, and as a consequence of, something already a crime. At best, it's mere posturing, a way to say something controversial to get attention -- something I, as a sometimes academic myself, have some sympathy with, but it should generally be better concealed than this.

At worst, it creates a crime that can only be committed by a man, that can be committed with all good faith on the man's part, without criminal intent, and which only becomes a crime after the fact when the woman has second thoughts -- and inherently assumes that a woman, because she is a woman is not as capable as a man of making an adult choice, and of then living with the consequences of that choice.

You meddlesome busybodies. I'm not going to waste time giving this a point-by-point critique; I have people to do that for me. My observation is of a different sort: I am so glad Americans are armed to the teeth, for I can't begin to imagine the sort of tyrannical exquisiteness you would come up with if you really thought you had a free hand.

This is one of those ideas that looks good on paper but that cannot be implemented in the real world. The practical legal difficulties would be enormous as would the potential for prosecutorial abuse.

The ugly truth of the matter is that once two people voluntarily enter a bedroom together and close the door, the law has little power to protect either of them unless so much violence occurs that it leaves unmistakable evidence.

Traditional culture avoided such problems by strongly discouraging the the one-night-stand. The past couple of generations have decided that sexual freedom is more important than physical safety.

Individuals who voluntarily place themselves in these vulnerable situations will have to accept the risk. The State does not have the moral or practical power to protect them.

we already have laws geared to prosecute people who knowingly have unprotected sex and give it to others. In the case of AIDS this is a murder charge.

Saying you have to wear a condom won't fly, for one take the catholic church (which comprises a large part of the world and this country) which is steadfast against condoms, secondly a law like this is frivolous at best because you would suddenly have women who get mad at their ex-boyfriends and start trying to prosecute for that "one time"..

Basically, the old adage of not legislating morality.

In my opinion; laws should stay out of saying who can marry (regardly of my position on gay marraige, that should be a state by state vote, or county by county.. I live in New York, our lives and culture are a world of difference from someone in rural oklahoma.) laws should stay out of beliefs, and the bedroom. (i.e. criminalizing certain types of sexual activity) I may be a straight married man, but other people have their own ideas on how to live their lives and as long as it is all consentual.

The real deal with this case is.He had enough money to hire a fleet of lawyers, if he was a regular guy he would be in jail right now getting beat up on a daily basis for being a rapist.

"The very act of stopping to put on a condom should increase deliberation and communication. The more deliberation and communication, the lesser the likelihood of acquaintance rape."

If this is the thrust of your desired outcome, then perhaps a signed declaration prior to the commencement of intimate relations should be obtained by whichever party wishes to initiate said relations.

An appropriate instrument may be modeled on the widely accepted practice of obtaining an agreement regarding the distribution of assets obtained by signatory parties prior to entering into a merger. Commonly referred to as a pre-nup.

Call it a pre-coital agreement. It should engender a grat deal of deliberation and communication.

BTW, in the original concept, does the term condom refer to a penile condom, vaginal condom, or both?

What about unprotected first encounter sex between mormon homosexuals who pledge not to have sex, ever, until they have formed a civil union, but are nonetheless not spouses the first time they have sex?

What if someone has unprotected first time sex, and then the other partner dies in a car accident?

Hey buddy - nice attempt to criminilize one night stands (but only for men) - but it will never work.

There is another problem aside from the valid legal and philosophical objections raised above. Condoms are treated by "theorists" as if they're some sort of universal solution. But they can't be used by some (perhaps significant) portion of the male population. What about those guys - are they just supposed to drop dead from disease? Here is a cogent little argument - right here on Blogger! - which, while specifically in reference to the runaround OSHA is giving the California porn-film industry, is certainly relevant to this thread -http://billsfifthcolumn.blogspot.com/

Aside from whether this would be wise legislation, there is a big constitutional objection to such a statute. If the elements of the crime are (1) a first-time sexual encounter plus (2) no use of a condom, it essentially criminalizes first-time CONSENSUAL sexual encounters without the use of a condom: that the defendant can prove consent of the other person by a preponderence of the evidence does not change this, as the crime is defined by what the PROSECUTION must prove. This follows from the constitutional requirement that the State must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let's look at element #2. The Supreme Court has expressly held in Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird that a State cannot outlaw the use of contraceptives. It stands to reason that a State also cannot MANDATE the use of contraceptives. Now, let's look at element #1. Can a State ban first-time sexual encounters? Given Lawrence v. Texas, the recent gay sodomy case, it is extremely doubtful that a State could ban any private consensual sexual activity among adults. Perhaps Ayres and Baker read Lawrence as protecting only private consensual adult sexual activity WITHIN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP. I seriously doubt that one can read it that narrowly. In any event, it remains to be seen how one can engage in such activities even within a committed relationship without satisfying element #1 of the statute at least once (i.e., there's a first time for everything).

Since element #1 cannot constitutionally be made a crime and element #2 cannot constitutionally be made a crime, can a State make the congruence of the two a crime? This is a more difficult issue. Are there any instances in which a legislature could make a crime out of the congruence of two separate elements, neither of which by itself could constitutionally be made a crime? Perhaps a federal statute making it a crime for a felon to possess ANY firearms (I believe the current federal statute applies only to some types of firearms). Under a robust reading of the Second Amendment, Congress could not ban ALL firearms. Congress also could not make it a crime simply to be a felon, as such "status crimes" violate due process principles under Robinson v. California. But even this example is somewhat off the mark because one has no constitutional right to be a felon, in the same way that one DOES have a constitutional right not to use contraception, but only a constitutional right not to be PUNISHED for being a felon.

I should say I was unable to download the article so this is based only on the abstract. Presumably, Ayres and Baker have anticipated and responded in some way to these objections. I am anxious to see the finished product.

A better proposal, in my view, would be to make "reckless rape" a crime: A person commits the crime of reckless rape when, with reckless disregard to the lack of consent of another person, he knowingly engages in sexual intercourse with such other person, and when the other person does not consent. But I believe such proposals have been made in the past.

A lot of posters seem to be missing the point that despite the grandiose overtures of civic responsibility contained within this foolish piece, the *intent* of this proposal is NOT to 'protect' people as it claims, rather it is *designed* to make criminals out of every man.

I've had enough of these ignorant academics touting our best intrests, while being safe in the confines of their ivory towers.

As Ayn Rand said, "When people/governments want power over others, they create laws that are designed to be broken" (rough paraphrase). I'm not even going to give you the credit of noble sentiment, because it isn't noble at all, it's simply a power grab.

Proof of this type of reckless conduct should be sufficient to shift the burden to men to prove consent.

Yea. That's a Marxist-Feminist for you. This is like demanding a male to prove that he didn't touch a woman's vagina after he is falsely accused of sexual assault. It doesn't matter that there are no witnesses or physical evidence. They want the literal power to send any man to jail even though women already have enormous power to make false allegations that stick.

The dismissal of Kobe Bryant’s case highlights the need for a new kind of criminal law that would both promote public health and help reduce the tragedy of sexual coercion.

One person, that was most likely accused of false rape, avoids jail and now the Marxist-Feminist want to further criminalize heterosexual relations.

The Marxist-Feminists are so filled with the hatred of males that they cannot imagine that Kobe might have given that statement as a face saving move for Kate Fabre so he could get the false allegations dismissed.

A new crime of “reckless sexual conduct” should target unprotected first encounters.

Obviously, the Marxist-Feminists feel the need to further take away individual responsibility for a woman to be responsible. That is because they believe women in general are stupid. Notice that they only want the male to be criminalized. There is no possibility under this law that the woman would be criminalized. It is simply more male-hate law.

To convict, prosecutors would need to show beyond a reasonable doubt (i) a first-time sexual encounter between the defendant and the victim; and (ii) no use of a condom. The defendant would then have the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the victim consented to the unprotected sex.

"Prove by a preponderance of evidence..." What the hell? Notice the slippery slope here used by these Marxist-Feminist. Currently, it is the prosecution that must prove guilt. The defendant is not required to prove that a false allegation is a lie.

Now these communist want to shift the burden of proof of innocence to the male. They’ve already done this on a massive scale, and the practice has led to 10’s of thousands of innocent males being incarcerated because of false allegations. Think of all the new false accusations that would arise in the family and criminal court systems. These communist are literally demanding the right for lazy criminal woman to get more money and advantages via the mechanism of false allegations.

This is just another "women are superior and men are evil" diatribe. It is just the same old Marxist-Feminist strategy of seeking the destruction of males by criminalization and the granting of special privilege to women. What is the special privilege they are demanding? They want more power to make false allegations without the requirement to produce proof. It's just the same old Marxist-Feminist male hate speech.

Warble, I'm not sure if you are blaming all feminists here, or just the Marxist-feminists (whatever that term means), but I'd just like to say that I consider myself to be a feminist, and I absolutely disagree with this proposed law of reckless sexual conduct (as I stated in my comment earlier). Not all feminists are man-haters. So please don't denounce all feminists just because these two people proposed a law that you think is a horrible idea (as do I).

I think that the reason this law sounds so bad to me is BECAUSE I am a feminist. At least, that's partly why I disagree with it. They seem to only be targeting men, and they seem to be forgetting that it takes two people to have sex without a condom. And as other posters have pointed out, male condoms are not the only means of birth control/STD prevention.

New crimes should not be created as a means to deal with difficulties in prosecuting people of other crimes.

I assume that a fair number of readers of this post are practicing attorneys. I wonder how I might advise a client, especially a male, about the effect of and compliance with the proposed reckless sex statute. I might develop a statement that he may recite to his first time encounter with a woman that would satisfy his evidentiary burden. I might recommend that the statement be in writing and signed by her, maybe even witnessed. Perhaps an extensive chest tatoo would belt and suspender this. She would have to be advised that she could withdraw her consent at anytime, for any reason; but how might that be documented? A tape recorder? A video of the entire encounter? Of course, the condom should be saved in a special container that would survive the statute of limitations. Perhaps there should also be an exit interview, preferably documented. Assuming I shall get paid for the advice, I might recommend that I be contacted just prior to and just after each such encounter as a sort of due diligence. My advice may have to include a caveat that following my advice may diminish the passion extensively, in which case he should withdraw from the encounter. But this may give rise to a new tort claim on her behalf for leading her on and then leaving her flat. Further, might my advice be so reckless that he might have a malpractice claim against me, especially if he had to endure an unfulfilled 4-hour Viagra episode? Perhaps he would be better off listening to Cole Porter's "Love for Sale".

I address my comment to you as I understand what "warble" was trying to say.

I have heard of the term/label "marxist-feminist" myself and think I understand it. Allow me, in my own opinion, to explain:

Remember the phrase: "the personal is political"? Gender-feminists have adopted a legislative socialist atttitude in dealing with any gender conflict. They want "big daddy (mommy?) gov't" to step in any time there has been a conflict between a man and a woman. And the gender-feminists have made very sure that the burden of proof and the playing field are tilted in the woman's favor. The above legislation is a perfect example.

Others would be the VAWA inspired one sided DV laws, shelter funding, divorce court that favor women in custody, Title IX misapplication, one-sided "rape shield laws", and the "judicial discount" women receive (less time for the same crime) in criminal courts.

Marxist feminists are believers in big gov't solutions, socialist policies, and using the gov't to discriminate by favoring women in legislation, practice, and selective information and funding.

I address my comment to you as I understand what "warble" was trying to say.

I have heard of the term/label "marxist-feminist" myself and think I understand it. Allow me, in my own opinion, to explain:

Remember the phrase: "the personal is political"? Gender-feminists have adopted a legislative socialist atttitude in dealing with any gender conflict. They want "big daddy (mommy?) gov't" to step in any time there has been a conflict between a man and a woman. And the gender-feminists have made very sure that the burden of proof and the playing field are tilted in the woman's favor. The above legislation is a perfect example.

Others would be the VAWA inspired one sided DV laws, shelter funding, divorce court that favor women in custody, Title IX misapplication, one-sided "rape shield laws", and the "judicial discount" women receive (less time for the same crime) in criminal courts.

Marxist feminists are believers in big gov't solutions, socialist policies, and using the gov't to discriminate by favoring women in legislation, practice, and selective information and funding.

After re-reading this I wanted to add a new comment on something I read that really disturbed me:

"When rape happens early in a relationship, male misperception is a major cause. Indeed, in a statement yesterday, Bryant has explicitly conceded just this kind of misperception. After unconditionally apologizing “for [his] behavior that night,” Bryant admitted: “Although I truly believe [sic] this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.”

The dismissal of Kobe Bryant’s case highlights the need for a new kind of criminal law that would both promote public health and help reduce the tragedy of sexual coercion. "

Here's what annoys and frightens me:

1) These "professors" (I'm verbally generous today, aint I?) KNOW that Kobe HAD to make that statement to get the charges dismissed. It was that or possibly face prison and all the horrors that that entails.

But they pretend that Kobe made this statement voluntarily and that it was an admission. Anyone who can read a newspaper, let alone two publishing professors, knows that he HAD to make that statement.

2) They then continue down the false road (since the premise is wrong, any further steps must also not follow, non-sequitor) and say that most rapes are:------"When rape happens early in a relationship, male misperception is a major cause."

Ummm, excuse me, but I thought rape was a "patriarchal power" used to subjegate. Oh, since now different anti-male legislation is desired, we must shift the premise of rape, but when the legislation is passed the "professors" will probably sing the part line that it's about domination. It is probably domination spawned by the sick mind of a rapist, on that we would agree.

3) what this law is REALLY about is re-trying any man who gets a dismissal. PERIOD. Since the rates for finding men guilty is not sufficient, we must now find a way to punish under a different law, with a different premise, and that folks, is just feminist bootstrapping so that even men found not guilty face criminal charges. And these charges would put the preponderance of evidence on the accused. How convenient.

Raging Red, you said that (paraphrasing) "most feminists" don't subscribe to this kind of anti-male attitude, but I would, respectfully, counter that most feminists sit quietly by while such legislation passes.

To reverse this and show it's tacit approval I would offer this analogy:

Suppose I was at a party and went past a room and heard distressing sounds. I looked in and there you (or your friend) were, getting raped. You called to me for help. I ignored your plea. Why? Loss of popularity, not wanting to be involved, not caring due to it not being likely to happen to me, lack of human empathy or some other lame ass self-justifying excuse. Now, I did not PARTICIPATE in the rape, not did I ACTIVELY encourage it, but I gave it my tacit approval by my silence.

And to many men today (read some men's opinions on men's sites or try Men's News Daily) see women's silence as tacit approval to feminist male hatred.

I do NOT accuse you of anything, but rather hope I can give you some food for thought. Any reply would be welcome and I hope this puts this issue in a new light.

It seems to me the poster is less concerned with disease and pregnancy than with the problem of convicting men of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. By creating a new crime (applicable to men only) of "reckless sexual assault" the poster hopes to reduce the burden of proof vis a vis consent to a preponderance of evidence in addition to reversing the onus of proof. This is classic two bites of the cherry justice in which attempts are made to skirt standards of evidence required by criminal law.

The reasoning for reducing the standard of evidence to a preponderance of the evidence despite this being a criminal matter is not clearly explained. So far as I can tell, introducing the law described would criminalise first time sex for the purpose of reversing the burden of proof in rape cases: A first time sexual encounter would be criminal encounter would be criminal unless either a condom is used or the man can prove by preponderance of evidence that the woman consented.

Despite feminist discomfort with the notion, the person alleging a wrong is the person with the responsibility for proving their allegations. Reversing and reducing the burden of proof does not serve justice, rather, it serves only a longstanding feminist agenda that rape allegations should be treated differently from other allegations of wrongdoing.

Specifically, paternity fraud in marriage. I know this is slightly off topic, but just give me some leeway and you'll see my meaning.

Currently a wife can cheat and becomes pregnant, and then lie to her husband and use the law to FORCE him to be financially responsible for kids that are not his. Further, by definition she has exposed her LIFELONG partner to disease, and had a pregnancy. To be sure she is the one to become pregnant, but her duped husband is made to pay for it.

It is common knowledge that even an adultarous (sp?) wife can easily get custody, and that man who was married to her, biological father or not, will be made to pay.

And what if she brought herpes, syphalis, or AIDS into the marriage?

Not only is she almost NEVER held to ANY account for her actions, but should her betrayed husband seek to end the marriage it is feminist inspired law that will REWARD her for her fraud, betrayal, and exposing someone she claims to love to health risks.

Does THIS duplicitousness now show how Gender-feminists only want accountability in the law when it suits them?

Red notes, "Warble, I'm not sure if you are blaming all feminists here, or just the Marxist-feminists (whatever that term means), but I'd just like to say that I consider myself to be a feminist..."This is typical of feminists everywhere. They have no clue where their root philosophical ideologies originate because they are ignorant of communist history and of how feminism mirrors and performs wholesale adoption of Marxist/Stalinist ideals.

Get off your ass and read the communist manifesto bitch. Then read Engle’s book on the family. Then learn to realize that communism declared the mandate of the destruction of the natural family. Finally, take a good look at your lesbian feminist icons….what do they want? They all want the destruction of the natural family.

Next, get off your lazy ass and see what happened in history when the communist destroyed the family. Take a good look. You will find massive rises in gang warfare, criminal activities, warfare, and more.

I realize that there is a split in feminism today where the conservative feminists are trying to differentiate themselves from communist. The bottom line is that they are still feminists and have their core ideologies rooted in Marxism. All feminist groups support the destruction of the family and thus the decline and destruction of our civilization.

Next Red whines, "Not all feminists are man-haters. So please don't denounce all feminists just because these two people proposed a law that you think is a horrible idea (as do I)."Bull shit. I've listened to this crap for over 30 years. I've listened to feminists who claim that they are somehow different from feminist like the N.O.W. Marxist-Feminist variety. Yet they all seek special privilege in some form or other using mechanisms of oppression of males. All feminists (in general) are Marxist and male haters. Deal.

So yes. I condemn feminism. It is a scourge upon the human race and has resulted in damaged children, gang warfare, millions of men suffering false allegations and prison, and more.

Feminism is the Marxism of today and seeks to systematically overthrow entire governments so that women may enjoy special priviledge. There is no other purpose of feminism. It is not and never has been about equality.

Feminism is a failed social experiment that has resulted in the murder of millions of innocent people.

Steve insightfully notes, "Marxist feminists are believers in big gov't solutions, socialist policies, and using the gov't to discriminate by favoring women in legislation, practice, and selective information and funding.

Was this helpful?"Damn. That was good Steve. You will of course realize that when I post in response to Marxist-Feminist proposals that I'm usually quite pissed that it has gone this far. What happens is that the anger, which I express, is "labeled" as hate by the stupid PC feminist who are demanding laws to enforce thought control..

This is why (as a male), when I lobby against Marxist-Feminist ideologies and proposals for new law, the feminist will obtain secret orders for the police to seek my false arrest. They view me as very dangerous. I kid you not. I’ve been followed, secretly taped, and had the police force stand outside conference rooms at the legislature. The feminist even had secret hand signals that would alert the police guards that were watching via video to make an appearance.

Make no mistake. If you were to try and lobby for men's issues against feminist that it wouldn't take very long for the Marxist-Feminists to have the police following you either. This shit is damn scarey.

Men have got to wake-up and begin to learn that American now has a Marxist-Feminist controlled police force. The proof is the over 4.5 billion is spent on VAWA and less than 2.2 billion is spend on homeland security. The Marxist-Feminists are clearly in power and have control of the police.

I don't think calling Red Rage a bitch or those comments was called for. I understand the anger at the duplicitousness, but from what I read R.R. was against the law. Her comment of "that's not my brand of feminism" (paraphrasing) was addressed. And the fact that she posted in opposition says a lot too.

I do understand the anger you are expressing. The idea that this kind of "position paper" (right terminology?) or proposed law is seen outside of a KKK/Feminazi/"women's studies" classroom is pretty scary. It underscores that blatant discrimination that gender-feminists engage in while using victimology as a power tool.

Steven objects, "...I don't think calling Red Rage a bitch or those comments was called for...."Steven,

There is a reason to my madness. I am of course using generalizations, but here is the bottom line. Any woman that calls herself a feminist is, IMHO, a bitch, whore, murderer, closet communist, and worse.

If you want to understand why I believe this then try spending a few thousand of your own money to support a men's issues group that is lobbying for a law that will protect men. Do it for at least a couple of years.

Then if you don't come back thinking that feminists are bitches let me know. As for Red, she's a God damn feminists. That means that in general she is a closet communist bitch (IMHO). Hell. She is so ignorant that she doesn't even know why feminists are Marxists!

Wow. I have to say, Warble, you have left me almost speechless. I'm reluctant to respond to you at all, since that will only elicit more vitrol. I mean, how can I respond to a statement like "any woman that calls herself a feminist is, IMHO, a bitch, whore, murderer, closet communist, and worse?" It defies all rationality.

Now, your statement that people view you as very dangerous - that seems entirely reasonable.

Thanks for the laughs.

(Steven, I was willing to continue a conversation with you, but you'll have to forgive me for wanting to abandon this thread of comments altogether.)

I think Warble would do well to read some of the works of equity feminists such as Wendy McElroy,Christina Hoff Summers,Resa LaRu Kirkland,etc. While I will never call myself any type of femminist these women (and yes they do not mind been called wo- MEN) get it.I can understand your anger. I myself had to deal with my hatred of all things feminist until I started studying feminism 2 years ago. Although there are many (alot) of gender feminists out there (see authors of this report) we cannot paint all feminists with the same brush. Gender feminists are vindictive,slimy,and sick individuals who ( as you I expect think ) should be shot and locked up. On the other hand the authors I have posted above should be honored and saluted. They are one of the good guys (er girls).I expect you have been harmed in some way by a vindictive women.I have. I belong to a man's group who is fighting the gender feminists but so are the above authors. I will never let anyone accuse me of been a femminist. I am a masculinist and proud of it. I am still angry as hell at those gender femminists who have done some unspeakable attrocities in the name of promoting the feminist cause but I recognise a gender feminist when I see one and embrace an equity femminst when I encounter them.As to the "authors" article I totally agree that this is another male bashing piece written to entice the type of response that you posted.I expect how ever that they did not expect the overwelming negative learned responses given here. I think the gender feminists of today are beginning to realise (or perhaps not) that there is a backlash growing.That backlash includes both men and women. The movement is just beginning (see Fathers 4 Justice) and it will only continue to grow.The backlash has started and I believe will in the end bring women and men closer together in this silly gender war that has been going on for the last 30 years.Now if someone would just tell me how to get my comment section going in my blog I would be happy.

"You meddlesome busybodies. I'm not going to waste time giving this a point-by-point critique; I have people to do that for me. My observation is of a different sort: I am so glad Americans are armed to the teeth, for I can't begin to imagine the sort of tyrannical exquisiteness you would come up with if you really thought you had a free hand."

Yeah, none of the 53 squintillion commenters *objecting* to this idea could possibly have been American.

I know I'm a bit late into the discussion, but I thought I'd pitch my bit in anyway. It certainly looks as though such a law would increase pre-sex communication and reduce disease. However, if we need laws to increase dialog before such an intimate act, perhaps we should become extinct. At least, this would be the natural outcome, if things are left to follow their natural course. Its not wrong for humanity to become extinct, incidentally. In fact, its likely to happen as a byproduct of an earlier near-extinction about 70,000 years ago. I don't understand the theory, but apparently by examining the diversity of the human genome, genetists have determined that human population have been as low as 2000 individuals about 70,000 years ago.We are apparently one of the least genetically diverse species on the planet, and without enough genetic diversity, we are highly vulnerable to being wiped out by infection. Its unlikely we will regain diversity, since our intelligence allows us to change our environment, removing the need to adapt.

Well, well, well, obviously those that are posting comments against the proposed law has never had a gun held to their head while a man plays russian rulet(will I give her something, or will I not). If a woman clearly states to a man not to have unprotected sex with her, at that very moment he pulls out the gun and holds it against her head if he procceeds. Not knowing if the trigger he pulls has a bullet (STD's) or not. Having a man have unprotected sex with you, after you say no is a form of rape. A form of attempted murder. If a man chokes your neck, but doesnt strangle you, is it still assult or attempted murder. Who is the judge of that. I know from personal experience that having a man have unprotected sex with you is a horrible thing. You feel dirty, ashamed, and violated. Not knowing wether or not you have contracted a STD is a catastrophic thing. I feel that an amendment to the law should be made that a woman has the right to make a man be tested if she has been violated for peace of mind. Before anyone cancels out protecting womens rights, they have to think long and hard. A woman has the right to say NO under any situation that pertains to sex!!!

Well, well, well, obviously those that are posting comments against the proposed law has never had a gun held to their head while a man plays russian rulet(will I give her something, or will I not). If a woman clearly states to a man not to have unprotected sex with her, at that very moment he pulls out the gun and holds it against her head if he procceeds. Not knowing if the trigger he pulls has a bullet (STD's) or not. Having a man have unprotected sex with you, after you say no is a form of rape. A form of attempted murder. If a man chokes your neck, but doesnt strangle you, is it still assult or attempted murder. Who is the judge of that. I know from personal experience that having a man have unprotected sex with you is a horrible thing. You feel dirty, ashamed, and violated. Not knowing wether or not you have contracted a STD is a catastrophic thing. I feel that an amendment to the law should be made that a woman has the right to make a man be tested if she has been violated for peace of mind. Before anyone cancels out protecting womens rights, they have to think long and hard. A woman has the right to say NO under any situation that pertains to sex!!!

I skim a lot of blogs, and so far yours is in the Top 3 of my list of favorites. I'm going to dive in and try my hand at it, so wish me luck.

It'll be in a totally different area than yours (mine is about mens male enhancement reviews) I know, it sounds strange, but it's like anything, once you learn more about it, it's pretty cool. It's mostly about mens male enhancement reviews related articles and subjects.

Hi i am totally blown away with the blogs people have created its so much fun to read alot of good info and you have also one of the best blogs !! Have some time check my link to !!Make money online business

GOOD content thats what i like and just surfing around on blogs and finding good content is good feeling i am so glued to those blogs dont stop making good content keep it up i am not a pro on making pages but i see if you can visit my site maybe its something that you will like!!Easy money from home

Hi, I was just blog surfing and found you! If you are interested, go see my california business lawyer related site. It pretty much covers california business lawyer stuff. I guess you may find something of interest.

Alot of interesting comments on this blog, I was searching for some doctor related info and some how came across this site. I found it pretty cool, so I bookmarked. I'll really liked the second post on the front page, that got my attention.

My site is in a bit different area, but just as useful. I have a nicotine patch related site focusing on nicotine patch and mens health related topics.

Nice blog, keep up the good work!I have a blog/site tootexas home equity loanIt's a free information site on on home equity loans and refinancing. It can help you save money if you are in the market for a loan. You should check it out if you have the time :-)

I skim a lot of blogs, and so far yours is in the Top 3 of my list of favorites. I'm going to dive in and try my hand at it, so wish me luck.

It'll be in a totally different area than yours (mine is about electric penis pumps) I know, it sounds strange, but it's like anything, once you learn more about it, it's pretty cool. It's mostly about electric penis pumps related articles and subjects.

I skim a lot of blogs, and so far yours is in the Top 3 of my list of favorites. I'm going to dive in and try my hand at it, so wish me luck.

It'll be in a totally different area than yours (mine is about very pretty redheads making love) I know, it sounds strange, but it's like anything, once you learn more about it, it's pretty cool. It's mostly about very pretty redheads making love related articles and subjects.

For 23 years we have been the number one business opportunity for individuals wanting to gain financial freedom and realize the American dream of owning their own business.

NWC, Inc can get you started in a name brand electronics business of your own, without the usual large upfront investment associated with starting a business. We supply everything you need including full color catalogs that can be customized with your name and address, a fully stocked Ecommerce powered web site, 61,000 name brand products that can be drop shipped right to your customers door, large unsecured credit lines to help finance your customers, and much more.

Hey nice blog! I just want you too know that I have a ocean city md motel blog/sie too!It's a free information web site for discount hotel rooms!It can help you save big on your next trip!You should check it out if you get a chance :-)

Hi I was just blog surfing and I found You! nice blog!I have a equity home loan ottawa site/blogIt's a free information site on home equity loans and financeingYou should check it out if you get chance :-)

I'm sorry for being intrusive in to your blog. But I am Melissa and I am a mother of two that is just trying to get out of an incredible financial debt. See my hubby is away in Iraq trying to protect this great country that we live in, and I am at home with our two kids telling bill collectors please be patiant. When my husband returns from war we will beable to catch up on our payments. We have already had are 2001 Ford repossessed from the bank, and are now down to a 83 buick that is rusted from front to back and the heater don't work, and tire tax is due in November.

I'm not asking for your pitty because we got our ownselfs into this mess but we would love you and thank you in our prayers if you would just keep this link on your blog for others to view.

Great work on your blog - it was very enlightening. You've got a lot of useful info on there about Dui so I've bookmarked your site so I don't lose it. I'm doing a lot of research on Dui Exposed and have just started a new blog - I'd really appreciate your comments

Divorce always hurst somebody. Your blog covering california divorce law in the content was really informative. I have a web site giving information on california divorce law utilising divorce and separation articles. Great work!

Dude I'm All Shook Up said Elvis. I think I'll have me another cheeseburger then I'm gonna go home and ask Michael Jackson to come round and watch that waaaay cool surfing scene in Apocalypse Now on my new plasma tv .

Nice Blog!!! I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places whereyou can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in yourzip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quitea few. MAKE MONEY NOW

Nice Blog!!! I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places whereyou can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in yourzip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quitea few. MAKE MONEY NOW

A favorite pastime of mine is Sports Betting to make a few extra bucks. My only problems is that I was never good at picking teams or games.Recently I found a site that is like Sports Betting but I dont lose my money if my pick is bad.

Its a sports stock market, kinda like NASDAQ. which makes a big difference because if I buy shares in a team. I keep the stock whether they win or lose, but as a bonus I get paid divdends if they win.So I can make money with dividends and also from selling high and buying low.

I buy shares in NFL, NASCAR, NCAAB, MLB, Golf, Tennis ect....They just released Some Great IPOS's this week!

I very muck enjoyed your make money online business site. I also have a great interest in make money online business and have set up a site. Please feel free to check it out and let me know what you think

Hello, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!I have a free credit report .com site. It pretty much covers network marketing lead related stuff. Check it out if you get time :-)

Xbox 360's New Media Play Finding Fans (eWeek)Consumers were impressed by the expanded multimedia features of Microsoft's upcoming Xbox 360 at the Digital Life conference, while gamers were excited to begin using the devices to access other types of services.

Blogarama that is good stuff nice one I have a blog too also I have a website dedicated to helping people with their debts, mortgages,student loans plus much more all FREE info free debt consultation Take a look around it may help you in some way free debt consultation

www.nwcleasing.com offers the lowest rate financing on no closing cost mortgage What ever your financial situation, no closing cost mortgage can help. We even have a special loan program that can put money in your pocket within 1 hour of applying. Apply online today and see just how quickly we can get you approved regardless of your past credit. Rates start as low as 4%, apply today.

Very interesting blog. Most impressed. Thanks....Just thought I'd let you know about a site where you can earn an extra income from your website. You mightfind it worthwhile to check it out.home business

In order to succeed at anything, you need to see that you have the potential to reach your goals. For example, if you want to be a recording artist but have no singing ability, having success in this field is not likely.

However, if you love working on cars and have a real talent for fixing engines and transmissions, and to you, success would mean working for NASCAR, you have potential to learn and achieve that success.

I found your site on credit federal school suncoast union quite useful. I also have a site about credit federal school suncoast union that you may find useful also. Please feel free to check it out and let me know what you think

Learn how to enjoy life and nature rather than possessions. The next time you feel like spending money, head to your local park where you can enjoy the warm sun, green grass, and towering trees without spending a dime. Being happy in life is far better than buying item after item. Having an inner peace is better than having a house filled with “things.” That does not mean you cannot enjoy some of thefiner things in life it just means learning how to be happy with yourself and not “things.”

Good blog. Most impressed. Will be visiting again. While I'm here thought If you areinterested, check out my home based business related site. It's filled with money making ideas and you may find something of interest.

Almost everyone has at one point or another had an insufficient check. Most banks charge $20 per returned check, which if not careful with your account, can quickly add up to a lot of money. If you have a savings account, consider adding overdraft protection onto your checking account so if you ever go into a negative balance, the money would automatically be covered by your savings. Most banks offer this service free.

Your best home based business opportunity blog was quite intersting. I run a best home based business opportunity website at best home based business opportunity. worth a visit if you get the opportunity

Try a different type of recycling that will save you money. Have you ever received a nice gift that you like from someone but will never use? Rather than take it back to the store for an exchange, consider keeping it to give as a gift to someone else. Another way to recycle is to look around your home. There are always things right in your home that can be used to make nice gift baskets – things you never use. For example, the next time you purchase shower gel where you buy one and get one free, keep one for yourself and set the other one aside for future gift giving. You will find hundreds of ideas so be creative and consider things you purchased but have never used.

You need to have determination. With good intentions, there may be a close friend or family member that feels it would be better if you focused your attention in another direction. Uphold your unstoppable attitude, determined to succeed.

Good blog. Most impressed. Will be visiting again. While I'm here thought If you areinterested, check out my home based business related site. It's filled with money making ideas and you may find something of interest.

Try a different type of recycling that will save you money. Have you ever received a nice gift that you like from someone but will never use? Rather than take it back to the store for an exchange, consider keeping it to give as a gift to someone else. Another way to recycle is to look around your home. There are always things right in your home that can be used to make nice gift baskets – things you never use. For example, the next time you purchase shower gel where you buy one and get one free, keep one for yourself and set the other one aside for future gift giving. You will find hundreds of ideas so be creative and consider things you purchased but have never used.

You need to have determination. With good intentions, there may be a close friend or family member that feels it would be better if you focused your attention in another direction. Uphold your unstoppable attitude, determined to succeed.

I just came across your blog about unique business opportunity and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here. I have a unique business opportunity site. It pretty much covers unique business opportunity related stuff.so I know what I'm talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!

I just came across your blog about **keyword** and wanted to drop you a note telling you this is a great blog. I also have a web site & blog about Internet Marketing called Traffnic.com Review of The Rich Jerk, so I know what I'm talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here! Traffnic.com Review of The Rich Jerk is well worth the visit. Check it out.